PURPOSE: To develop a comprehensive protocol for suction stability management during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). METHODS: This was a retrospective video review of all SMILE cases where suction loss occurred or eye movement was noted in the medical record. The different types of eye movement were collated. A suction stability grading scale was derived to represent the magnitude of eye movements. A decision tree protocol was developed to define the management in each scenario depending on the suction stability grading and the femtosecond laser cutting progress. RESULTS: Eight types of eye movement were identified: fixation light tracking, Bell's reflex, saccades, oscillations, anxiety/uncooperative patient, nociceptive reflex movement, false suction, and nystagmus. Type I eye movements were defined as small movements that shift the corneal position by a clinically negligible amount. The surgeon may want to pause the femtosecond laser cutting, regain control of the patient, then continue. Type II eye movements were defined as large movements that shift the corneal position by a clinically relevant amount, in which case the surgeon may choose to release suction (ie, a surgeon-initiated suction loss). Type III eye movements were defined as those with sufficient force to break suction (ie, a patient-generated suction loss). A comprehensive decision tree was developed to cover all possible eye movement and suction loss scenarios. Example scenarios outside the preprogrammed machine restart treatment module include converting to laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) if there was tracking of the interface and restarting SMILE with a thinner cap if the original cap thickness was 135 μm or greater. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate management, it is possible for the SMILE procedure to be completed on the same day by either continuing with SMILE or converting to LASIK depending on the progress of the femtosecond laser cutting. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(12):809-816.]. Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.
PURPOSE: To develop a comprehensive protocol for suction stability management during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). METHODS: This was a retrospective video review of all SMILE cases where suction loss occurred or eye movement was noted in the medical record. The different types of eye movement were collated. A suction stability grading scale was derived to represent the magnitude of eye movements. A decision tree protocol was developed to define the management in each scenario depending on the suction stability grading and the femtosecond laser cutting progress. RESULTS: Eight types of eye movement were identified: fixation light tracking, Bell's reflex, saccades, oscillations, anxiety/uncooperative patient, nociceptive reflex movement, false suction, and nystagmus. Type I eye movements were defined as small movements that shift the corneal position by a clinically negligible amount. The surgeon may want to pause the femtosecond laser cutting, regain control of the patient, then continue. Type II eye movements were defined as large movements that shift the corneal position by a clinically relevant amount, in which case the surgeon may choose to release suction (ie, a surgeon-initiated suction loss). Type III eye movements were defined as those with sufficient force to break suction (ie, a patient-generated suction loss). A comprehensive decision tree was developed to cover all possible eye movement and suction loss scenarios. Example scenarios outside the preprogrammed machine restart treatment module include converting to laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) if there was tracking of the interface and restarting SMILE with a thinner cap if the original cap thickness was 135 μm or greater. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate management, it is possible for the SMILE procedure to be completed on the same day by either continuing with SMILE or converting to LASIK depending on the progress of the femtosecond laser cutting. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(12):809-816.]. Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Marcus Ang; Damien Gatinel; Dan Z Reinstein; Erik Mertens; Jorge L Alió Del Barrio; Jorge L Alió Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.775